Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: albie on July 23, 2016, 12:13:06 am
-
As Oily is going to be in the public eye for the next few weeks, he ought to have his own thread really, so here it is.
Oily was in the pay of Price Waterhouse Cooper, the accountancy giant, who stumped up £58k for services rendered;
House of Commons - The Register of Members' Financial Interests (7th May 2013) - Part 1: SMITH, Owen (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/130507/smith_owen.htm)
This is the same PWC who also invested in Ed Balls. Veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge produced a report on the activities of PWC, describing them as promoting tax evasion on an industrial scale;
Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms report published - News from Parliament - UK Parliament (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/report-tax-avoidance-the-role-of-large-accountancy-firms-follow-up/)
Personally, I think this kind of sponsorship is dubious at best, whether it is from PWC or a trade union, and the potential for conflicts of interest is considerable.
-
I find making judgements about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to tax avoidance really tough. I guess 95% of people everywhere wouldn't object to not reporting a few hundred quids worth of cash in hand work - yet that's not just tax avoidance, it's actually tax evasion. Which is illegal. How many on here sometimes acquire an extra receipt or two that end up being used to either pad the T&S claim, or, reduce the tax bill?
With a tax system that's more complex and cumbersome than writing the history of the universe in Sanskrit when you don't understand a single wortd of the lingo, it's inevitable that people with a bit of dosh will spend some of it seeking to reduce their tax bill. If they do that legally, by simply taking advantage of what's there in the laws, I think it's hard to complain. I might complain about the whole damn system being set up in a such a way. but given that that is what we've got,...
Now PWC and their cohorts. We are all supposed to love, honour and treasure 'the market'. Ok. We're all law abididng folk. So we love the market. Logically therefore we also love the actions of every single company and partnership that's designed to increase their competitive advantage, market shar, revenue and profitability. With a ready and willing bunch of customers, the market would have to be utterly mad for it to not develop operations like PwC and co.
No. wjhat's wrong is not PwC. it's the ethos underpinning PwC and their ilk. We've been brainwashed ever since the early 80's into believing the market is right. What we see now are simply the occasional pinpricks of discontent. Manage those, as every govenrment has sought to do since 1980, and the underlying ethos prospers unhindered.
I've decided I'm going to come back in my next life as an out and out anarchist. A Budhist anarchist actually.
BobG
-
You are right to make the distinction between evasion and avoidance, Bob. I should have said tax avoidance in the OP.
I start from the assumption that everyone should pay their tax, and that it is inexcusable for large corporations, like Google, to game the system to avoid their responsibilities.
The issue for me in relation to Owen Smith is that of judgement. There is no reasonable explanation that I have seen from Oily to justify accepting this donation. PWC will clearly want to have an input on the development of tax policy, both in the government and in the principal opposition. Oily is a PR lobbyist by profession before entering politics. From their point of view, the £58k is an insurance investment to secure their business interests across the electoral cycle.
Owen Smith must have known that in (properly) declaring these payments on the Parliamentary register, it would attract comment. He would also have been aware of the controversy about tax avoidance leading to the Hodge review and report. It seems he feels it is OK to disregard the negative perception of his sponsored activity on behalf of paying clients.
At the very least it seems an unfortunate error of judgement. If his ability to think through consequences is so limited, I doubt he is a suitable candidate for high office.
-
You know what Albie? Sadly, incredibly sadly, I think you're right. But there's two snags with you and me taking up the saintly approach. What other alternative is there to the benighted Corbyn? And, it's a symbol of what we, collectively, have allowed the world to become. It we, all of us, who have allowed to become acceptable-ish to accept 'donations'. If we'd insisted to pay our MP's a decent damn wage 30 years ago, all this sort of outside interference could have been banned. But we didn't. So they take outside jobs, they take donations, they take all sorts of graft, grease, and abuses. It's a bit rish, really, for us all to moan about it now. We've known about the practice for long enough - but we don't do much about it do we?
Me? I'd pay every MP half a million quid a year. I'd ban every single outside employment that gave anything in return at any time during the lifetime of that MP or his descendants or his family and their descendants too. I'd make it plain that if they were 95, bed ridden and desparate for a new will, if they chose a solicitorial firm they'd worked for whilst an MP, I'd have 'em slung in quod inside 15 seconds. They can work for outside firms of course. Just as long as they get no reward for it. None at all. They keep bleating on about the honour of 'performing public service'. Well, that'd let them demonstrate it.
BobG
-
Human nature unfortunately means that a good proportion of MPs would still wangle every single penny out of their position and status by any means possible.
-
The government create these loopholes, then years down the line decide it isn't right. Mp's shouldn't be allowed different homes paid for by the people.
They should be given a fixed, fair wage with travel & accomdation expenses and that's it, if the ordinary people have to 'tighten they're belts', why don't they?.
Why should they be allowed money for furnishing a second home?, what's wrong with a hotel room?. Mp's in our area have homes, that nobody ever see them at.
If it was me, i would just pay my way, not try to avoid taxes, that way you can live with a clear head, rather than using a scheme that's legal now, but might not be in five years time, then you have a big lump sum to pay, that will ruin you.
-
I don't think ;ruin' is quite the right word Sammy :) When Mrs T entered the H's of P, she was pretty much an average type. Hubby had a business that was starting to earn a few quid, but nowt special. When she left parliament, Mrs T herself, not him, not the pair of them - just her - was a multi millionaire. And that was 25-30 years ago now. A million quid was worth a bit more than it is now too. No. Even if politicians did get a lump sum to pay back, and there's precious little evidence of that is there except for a few expenses scapegoats repaying buttons, most of em'd be able to afford it. Dennis Skinner types maybe not. But every bugger else? Definitely.
BobG
-
Interesting that you think Dennis Skinner (types ?) wouldn't take advantage of any perks that he (they) may be entitled to.
-
I don't think ;ruin' is quite the right word Sammy :) When Mrs T enetred thr H's of P, she was pretty much an average tyope. hubby had a business that was starting to earn a few quid, but nowt special. When she left parliament, Mrs T herself, not him, not the pair of them - just her - was a multi millionaire. And that was 25-30 years ago now a million quid was worth a bit more than it is now. No. Even if politicians did get a lump sum to pay back, and there's precious little evidence of that is there except for a few expenses scapegoats repaying buttons, most of em'd be able to afford it. Dennis Skinner types maybe not. But every bugger else? Definitely.
BobG
Sorry Bob but Denis was already a millionaire before he married Maggie.
-
If the ordinary man or woman, in the street does it, they go after them with the full force of the law, but politicians seem to be exempt from being done for it.
Am i right in thinking they have protection from this sort of thing, because they are government, employees?.
-
No you are incorrect Sammy. In 2011, 0.13% of the general population was in jail, whilst 0.61% of the House of Commons were, for fiddling their expenses.
http://www.channel4.com/news/out-of-order-politicians-who-ended-up-behind-bars
-
And on here is the proof of what that cash from PwC bought.....
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24797/owen_smith/pontypridd/votes
See the "tax avoidance" voting record. . He also voted for Trident, the biggest waste and drain on resources the country faces.
-
Rob
I'm sorry mate, but if that is supposed to be some important finding, you're making yourself look a bit daft.
Click on the "Show Full Debate" tabs for each of those tax avoidance votes. Then scroll down to see who voted Aye and No. And check which Lobby Smith and Corbyn were in for each vote.
If you think you've got real criticisms of Smith, do some proper research first, before you come to conclusions.
-
Owen "Pfizer Lobbyist, lover of PFI and flogging off the NHS" savior of the Labour Party then is he Billy?
Interesting that most of his "policies" he came out with at Orgreave the other day are lifted from Jeremy Corbyn. You know, that bloke who's kind of policies made the left unelectable in the 80's.
-
Jon
I've said till I'm tired of saying it that I agree with the Corbyn/McDonnell economic policy, which Smith also agrees with. There's nothing historically far-left about that. It's solid, 1950s Keynesian stuff; the sort of thing that every PM signed up to between 1945 and IMF/1976 (and, incidentally, Brown and Balls too - despite the Corbyn Cult castigating them as Red Tories, they were on the same page as far as the macro-economics goes).
If that was all there was to it, then I'd be a Corbynista. But it's not. It's about all the other left-wing baggage that gets accumulated when you are on the ideologically pure side of the argument for a lifetime. From the f**king daft (umming and ahhing about kneeling before the Queen, not singing the National Anthem at memorial services) to the critical (open support for terrorists; a lifetime of being anti-NATO and refusing to re-examine that stance in the light of the most dangerous times for a generation in Europe; self-indulgent, ideological navel gazing over the EU whilst the swivelled-eyed Right were winning the argument).
It is THAT baggage that makes him unelectable. When push comes to shove, and he's (fairly or unfairly) painted as a danger to the UK, the electorate will baulk at him.
And THAT is the core of the problem. Labour will lose the chance to really get to grips with the economy, because they will have an unelectable leader who cannot prioritise. Who goes the whole shebang or nothing. Who cannot compromise.
You, and the Corbyn Cult see those aspects of him as being praiseworthy. Me, I'm reminded of the old saying, "Let not the Best be the enemy of the the Good."
By the way: Smith "flogging off the NHS"? f**king well grow up. This is serious and requires serious application of thought, not stupidity like that.
-
Very difficult to get to grips with who Owen Smith actually is in political terms;
Who is Owen Smith? | openDemocracy (https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ian-sinclair/who-is-owen-smith)
A vicar of Bray type by the look, but who really knows.
I think Rob's post misses the real interest of companies like PWC.
Rather than a simple votes for funds payback, what they really want is a seat at the table on internal discussions. This is the best way to frame the terms of the debate in a way which protects their commercial interests.
In these terms, funding to key players within all the political groups keeps their ear close to the ground before policy options make the light of day for further consideration. A legimate business expense to the corporate sector?
-
Apologies all for posting a half baked thesis. I literally had a spare 8 seconds.
-
Rob
Aye, and an over-reaction from me. I'm just sick of what should be a serious debate about the future of this party, being hi-jacked by people who are not prepared to look seriously at the issues.
-
Jon
I've said till I'm tired of saying it that I agree with the Corbyn/McDonnell economic policy, which Smith also agrees with. There's nothing historically far-left about that. It's solid, 1950s Keynesian stuff; the sort of thing that every PM signed up to between 1945 and IMF/1976 (and, incidentally, Brown and Balls too - despite the Corbyn Cult castigating them as Red Tories, they were on the same page as far as the macro-economics goes).
So, I buy The Times today and look at the editorial page and guess what? The paper that was screaming for Austerity for 8 years and saying that stimulus couldn't work is now saying: "Having bowed to the inevitable and deferred plans to eliminate the deficit, the Govt should now support demand by cuts to indirect taxation. And it should undertake infrastructure investment of its own, at today's very low interest rates."
In other words, Labour was right about Austerity all along.
But. Here's the rub. Having ditched Osborne, the Tories have given themselves a free run to go Keynesian and sort out the economy. And when they do that, where does Labour go? Labour won't have a counter argument on the economy, because there isn't one. So the spotlight will be turned onto the other aspects of Corbynism.
Housing is certainly a topic that Labour ought to be strong on, but then again, May is also promising to address housing. So what's left to colour Labour in with? Attitudes to NATO and terrorism become the obvious battleground. And there's an obvious outcome.
-
Not disagreeing with you, BST, but wouldn't Labour have that problem whoever was the leader once the Tories decided to steal their economic clothes?
-
Then Labour will have to try and get on the front foot on social issues instead.
-
TRB
Not necessarily.
Its potentially strong ground for Labour. The line is "We spent a decade telling you the Tories were wrong about Austerity and no they finally admit it. The issue now is to make sure that the benefits of the next generation of growth get fairly distributed."
That is more or less what the Miliband/Balls line was. It'll be the Corbyn/McDonnell line too. The problem being that Corbyn and McDonnell are very vulnerable on other things. If it appears that they are making any headway with the public on economic grounds, they will be attacked as being unreliable on national security.
-
PS. Guess who's on child-sitting duties and unable to get to Accrington...
-
PS. Guess who's on child-sitting duties and unable to get to Accrington...
Owen Smith?
-
Rob
Aye, and an over-reaction from me. I'm just sick of what should be a serious debate about the future of this party, being hi-jacked by people who are not prepared to look seriously at the issues.
Hijacked? How f**king dare you, you sanctimonious prick. I'm a party member, have been for 7 years, an affiliated member through my union AND regularly donate to the party. I've recruited 14 new party members in as many days after Brexit (not bad to say the leader didn't pull his weight, eh?) You might be older and wiser but its exactly your sort of attitude that lost a few hundred thousand members and millions of votes in 13 years. You want to get your nose out of the Times and actually go out and talk one on one with people and you'll find out that Corbyn isn't the problem. Nor are his ideas. Its the crass misrepresentation which people like you aren't prepared to counter. I have spoken to scores of people in my day job with warped ideas about Corbyn and turned their opinions within 5 minutes. It just takes a bit of effort.
Owen Smith is a fraud. This is all one big massive game from the PLP. Do you honestly believe if people like Mandelson, who have endorsed him on a platform which is to the far left of anything cooked up by New Labour, that his campaign is anything other than fraudulent? I'll tell you EXACTLY what the plan is shall I, straight out of the mouths of certain people within the PLP who can't hold their water? Somehow find someone not tarnished by Iraq, and can handle a media circus, get a left platform close to Corbyn to take some of Corbyns supporters away to switch allegiance to Smith. Purge as many new members and affiliates as possible to dwindle numbers even more. Get Smith elected, he steps down within 12 months, along comes Hillary Benn, Dan Jarvis or Chuka Ummuna (or don't discount the other Miliband) on a black stallion to save New Labour. Re-inflate the neo-liberal bubble and carry on as normal, begging suburbia to give them another chance whilst forgetting the plebs because they'll vote Labour anyway. Because that is their mantra.
But I'm afraid its not going to work, because Jeremy is electable. The party will re elect him. Then when the plotters do it all over again next year (again, all part of the on going plan), he will win again. and again. You see Billy, people have had enough, especially the young. People are not falling for the shit in the papers as much and that's becoming more pronounced every year. The young want something different. They have been f**ked over by Blair, and now they are being f**ked over by the Tories. And their parents and grand parents f**ked them over with Brexit. Like I told a young lass at Sheffield Uni the other day. Don't get mad, get even. Join the party, get involved, win the arguments and f**k over the older generations who have f**ked you through Brexit over by getting Corbyn in Number 10. 40% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2015. Utilise social media (which was Miliband's massive mistake) to get the youth vote out and Labour can win. The young don't buy the Trident argument either. What use is a nuclear warhead against a brainwashed suicide bomber anyway? And its not our button to press...some deterrent?! You may as well set fire to a hundred and sixty billion worth of used bank notes and hope we smoke the enemy out.
Oh, as for the skit about Smith and Privatisation of the NHS...I'll just leave this here.
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/public-supportive-moves-increase-choice-government-must-do-more-make-it-reality (http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/press/press-releases/public-supportive-moves-increase-choice-government-must-do-more-make-it-reality)
-
Jon
Calm down pal.
Look at the context.
1) Albie starts this thread off calling a left-wing recent Shadow Cabinet member "Oily" Smith.
2) RTR makes a daft contribution suggesting that Smith was bought out by PWC into voting for tax avoidance, when a cursory look at the data shows that Corbyn voted in the same lobby in every single relevant vote.
3) You blather on about Smith wanting to privatise the NHS when he has never said a single word to support that conclusion (and he doesn't in that link you posted, does he?)
The point is mate, that any sense of proportion has gone out the f**king window. He opposes Corbyn, therefore he's a bas**rd who is not to be trusted. There is nothing whatsoever in his record to justify that conclusion, but you believe it anyway because...
Well, because he criticises Jeremy.
And if the facts don't support that conclusion, well f**k the facts. You'll believe what you want to believe anyway.
You don't like that assessment of your approach? Fine. Find some facts to contradict me, instead of blindly spouting nonsense and calling me a sanctimonious prick for calling you out.
This is f**king idiocy. There is a sensible, mature debate to be had. A debate that NEEDS to be had. And it's not being had because of unjustified ad hominems coming from the Corbynistas. If you believe that you have the right side of the argument, argue the bloody argument instead of inventing bloody bogeymen.
By the way. I put my nose into lots of sources. From The Telegraph to the Morning Star. I find that reading stuff that challenges your views rather than immersing yourself investing that reinforces them is a fine way to test whether your beliefs have any validity, or are just piss and wind that collapse when you test them.
-
PS
It'll not chime with your insistence that anyone who isn't for Corbyn must be a Blairite, but for the record, I first joined the Labour Party in 1982. I made my choice at 16 when the question for the centre and left was "Labour or SDP?". I resigned in 1995 because I didn't like the direction Blair was taking the party. I rejoined in 2012 because, despite reservations, I felt that the Balls/Miliband economic policy was vital for the future prosperity of the country. That's the one that Corbyn and Smith both broadly support.
See, there's detail and nuance in this debate. And it's important. And it gets drowned out when the slurs and insults are being chucked around. If you insist that everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy, then I will tell you now, the party is f**ked.
-
If you havent seen it, this article on the vision - and divides - in the labour party is worth reading
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/26/labour-battle-blairites-corbynistas-conservatives-progressives
-
Wilts
No. That article is of no help whatsoever in this debate. Because it does the same thing that I keep hammering on about.
It doesn't address the central issue in this debate. It re-hashes arguments about New Labour, then dismisses Smith through a series of ad hominems which, when you go and actually look at the links, are slanted at best.
Why is it that the Corbynistas don't realise that on the central economic and social issues, there is no bloody argument. None. It's not about Corbyn of Blair MkII. It's about whether Corbyn is actually any good at being a Parliamentary leader.
But we're not having that debate because the Corbynistas don't want to hear it. It's much easier to divide the world into true believers and the enemy (which includes such undoubted Blairites as Lisa Nandy and Lou Haigh).
What is it? Why is there such a vicious determination to avoid the issue?
-
Sorry Billy, but I think all you have done is just proved the second paragraph.
Corbyn (and his supporters) represent change and difference, thus are disliked and seen as a threat by 'the establishment'. They dont want him - and his supporters dont want them. There is no point in having a debate as there is no middle ground to debate to. Either start up your tank or start running, those are the options.
-
Billy,
Oily is the nickname Owen Smith has had for a while, including within the Labour Party.
The different perspectives on this are really about your psychological type, whether you are a "soldier", or a "scout". The concept is called "motivated reasoning", and everyone who follows a football team will understand it.
10 minute video that explains the difference between soldier and scout;
Why "scout mindset" is crucial to good judgment | Julia Galef | TEDxPSU - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MYEtQ5Zdn8&index=11&list=PLsRNoUx8w3rOA35TMHjDfzwKyI3za71mY)
Me, I'm a scout I think.
-
That's a very interesting piece. There are a hell of a lot of 'soldiers' on this forum against just a few of us 'scouts'.
-
Wilts
1) The second paragraph? f**k me. A clever bit of rhetoric, along the lines of "Look how clever I am. I can put a different spin on the "LEft vs Right debate that is actually not the topic that we should be debating, and drop in a sly abusive epithet for the straw men that that I'm setting up, so that debate can be closed down in future. How f**king smart am I? Well yeah! I AM doing a PhD after all." Good help us if that is impressing intelligent people like you.
2) "There is no point in having a debate as there is no middle ground to debate to. Either start up your tank or start running, those are the options."
Go back and have another read of that. Then go and read it again. And then again.
And then ask yourself what the f**k you are doing with this party. You are so cock sure of yourself that "there is no point having a debate". Even when it is pointed out to you time and again that there are people who actually agree with you on many of the substantive policy issues, but have genuine issues on the detail.
THIS is the Left that I used to know in the 1980s. Intolerant of dissent and debate. Zealously certain of their own correctness. Dismissive and abusive of anyone who raised valid points that countered their view.
You've got the party now. You'd f**king well better be sure that you are correct, because you're clearly not open to discussion, even with people who are very close to you on so many points.
-
Albie
That was his nickname inside the Labour party was it? Funny. I'd never heard it mentioned until about four weeks ago. Who did you used to hear it mentioned by?
-
Sorry Billy but you appear to be under the misimpression that I am a member of the Labour Party and have a personal say in the leadership election. I am not.
I said in 2003 that after Tony Blair had ignored public opinion for his own personal gain that this was not a party I wished to be involved with - and I would never vote for them again. And I haven't. I thought the tide had turned with Corbyn, but instead you and yours and just building bigger flood barriers.
It isn't about policy issues, it's about trust. I don't trust the PLP or Owen Smith, they are just carrerists in Blairs mould. You think they will win you votes in Cheltenham, Braintree and Henley-on-Thames. Good luck on that one. It's they who will make Labour irrelevant, not Corbyn.
-
Albie
That was his nickname inside the Labour party was it? Funny. I'd never heard it mentioned until about four weeks ago. Who did you used to hear it mentioned by?
Here's it referenced in a book from 2006, seems it's been in popular circulation within Labour for at least a decade, probably missed it during your huff.
(http://i.imgur.com/DAHwg2C.jpg)
Always here to keep you right, Billy
-
Also, here's a Google trend of the term which seems to have actually decreased in popularity during the decade, little spike recently but still not as common as it was in 2006.
(http://i.imgur.com/rmDCBVo.jpg)
Billy, you really are misfiring at the moment. I normally expect better from you. If you need to chat you know where I am.
-
Sad
Let's get this right.
You post up an un-referenced Google Books link as evidence [1], and then a Google Trends graph that shows "Oily Smith" trending at mega-levels [2] before yer man was anywhere near the spotlight [3].
But no. f**k me. Deep Throat or what!?!
But if you're this much in need of a bit of attention, well done. You've got it big man.
[1] Yeah...it's evidence that SOMEONE used that nickname in 2006. Not that it was tripping off every tongue in Westminster. I assume you can guess what some people round here call you. And me.
[2] Even higher than "Neil Taylor Louis Tomlinson" in 2016! Just IMAGINE!
[3] (Do you think there might, just possibly, have been another explanation here? Eh?
-
Fill ya boots, Billy (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QFmeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT178&lpg=PT178&dq=quentin+letts+oily+smith&source=bl&ots=yjbpQLY2DG&sig=NQNdZbe9Uo0GtaN82zpFMB73mKc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZhuX_trDOAhXKAcAKHbjdB0gQ6AEILjAF#v=onepage&q=quentin%20letts%20oily%20smith&f=false)
Also, it's not "trending at mega levels" and never had been, circa 50 mentions a month, the graph is to show that it's been in circulation pretty much as long as Google keeps records and isn't a recent invention by hysterical Corbynistas as you suggest.
Nice attempt at some "Whataboutery" with the Tomlinson links though, you've clearly been knocking about with Wes too much
-
Even higher than "Neil Taylor Louis Tomlinson" in 2016! Just IMAGINE!
[3] (Do you think there might, just possibly, have been another explanation here? Eh?
Considerably higher:
(http://i.imgur.com/NynAXx6.png)
I'm clearly not as famous as I deserve to be. As for "another explanation" I'm all ears, I've presented my facts and citations, let's be having yours.
-
I feel you've struggled slightly with the graph, the figures are total results per month, 0-100. If it was a more popular search it's be graduated in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands.
As I've said, I'm here to keep you right, Billy. No judgement from me on your stunning slip in form recently.
-
Sorry but what is 'the debate'? Corbyn is currently the one setting out the political vision for the left and the alternative is where exactly?
Until then, claims that non-labour members/voters are preventing debate (like this thread, embarrassingly) within the labour party are just hot air and bluster. Almost paranoia.
-
After going on about how Corbyn's policies are sound but his personality doesn't make for an effective leader as he can't alter people's perceptions, BST, you can't then go on about how the perception of Smith as an opportunistic, careerist Blairite is unjust and unfair. You've said over and over again that the membership is a tiny proportion of the population, which is true - if Smith can't even convince them the sky is blue then he must be even more worthless than Corbyn in your view, surely?
Smith is standing on the platform that he isn't Jeremy Corbyn - is that really a platform more capable of winning an election than Corbyn, even with all his faults? Perhaps Owen Smith wouldn't be quite so open to ad hominems if people could work out what the f**king point of him is.
Speaking of ad hominems, why do you think Angela Eagle is continuing to go on about her office window being smashed, even though it wasn't actually her office, and was in fact a stairwell in a communal building that regularly finds itself vandalised with no evidence of it being a targeted attack whatsoever? Maybe the wilful misrepresentation of fact to tar Corbyn and his supporters as condoning violence, coupled with attempting to block them from voting because they're so untrustworthy and obviously trying to hijack the party, is what's got people so angry? What level of debate do you expect when you start with "you're a violent, untrustworthy thug, but let's hear what you have to say"?
-
Worthwhile read from Owen Jones about the real problems Labour has - doubly worth reading in light of Tom Watson's latest statement. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/10/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-contest-opponents-failures
-
Whilst, on the other hand...
https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/questions-all-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-need-to-answer-b3e82ace7ed3#.gtccph1ry
Actually Macho, I'm fully accepting of the argument that the failures of the previous Labour administrations and leaderships led to Corbynism. No question.
By the very same token, Militant Tendency and their fellow travellers led directly to Tony Blair.
It works both ways. Unfortunately, we'll see the same cycle played out over the next 20 years.
It's the eternal failing of the Labour Party. Zealous certainty from each wing that it is correct, followed by disillusionment and loss of interest and a swing the other way.
But doubtless I'll be dismissed as a Blairite for holding such opinions.
PS: Actually, Owen Jones may well be trying to do the job of being the much needed grown up. That pair of articles, taken together, ought to give BOTH f**king sides pause for thought and reflection.
Problem is, I suspect each side will dwell on the article that criticises the other side. Ho hum.
-
What was wrong with militant ?At least they had the balls to take on Thatcher in carrying out labour party policies .Building houses while the rest of the country adopted Kinocks dented shield philosophy.Were did that get us ?Slogans like "better labour cuts than tory cuts" A DMBC mafia prior to donnygate getting tory awards for keeping within the budget.For f-cks sake if you support capitalism in all its glory vote Tory they are the experts .I for one want my party back after years of right wing infiltration ,not chasing the mythical middle ground but getting back to bread and butter relevant socialist policies that will engage the forgotten millions .Yes i was a militant and still am.No i am not in momentum but think JC is a breath of fresh air .My only criticism if any of militant is that they have left the labour movement and should be back in the fight offering young people a way forward .JC4PM
-
BST is gonna LOVE you...
-
Get the popcorn, Sad...